Absence of ticket and lack of eyewitnesses cannot defeat a claim for compensation for untoward railway incidents.

The appellants’ predecessor, Harun Al Rasid, allegedly boarded the Padatik SF Express on 22-09-2021 from Sealdah to Cooch Behar after purchasing a valid ticket

During the journey, he fell from the running train between Jamirghata and Khaltipur stations due to overcrowding and a sudden jerk, resulting in his death

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on 08-02-2017, concluding that the claimants failed to prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger because no journey ticket was recovered from the body

The Railway Authority further contended the incident was a "run over" case rather than a fall from a train

1. Whether the mere non-recovery of a travel ticket from the body of the deceased is sufficient to rebut the presumption that the deceased was a bona fide railway passenger

2. Whether the death caused by falling from a running train constitutes an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989

Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which mandates compensation for "untoward incidents" regardless of wrongful act or neglect by the railway, unless specific exceptions (e.g., suicide, self-inflicted injury) apply

The landmark principle from Union of India v. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, which held that the mere absence of a ticket does not negative a claim; once the claimant files an affidavit of relevant facts, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove bona fide status

Dali Rani Saha v. Union of India and Kamukayi v. Union of India, emphasizing that tickets are often lost during accidental falls and a "strict liability" principle applies to railway accidents

The Court observed that the appellants discharged their initial burden through an affidavit and testimony (AW-1) stating the victim boarded the train to return from a job search in Kolkata, corroborated by a phone call at 11:00 p.m.

The court criticized the Tribunal for treating the police investigation—which suggested a fall from a train—as "hearsay"

It reasoned that in long-distance travel, passengers typically purchase tickets to avoid prosecution, and a ticket could easily be lost or misplaced during a violent fall

The Court rejected the Railway's "run over" theory, noting that because the deceased lived over 100 km away and had no business in the vicinity of the tracks, a "run over" was improbable without direct evidence

The Court further highlighted that the Railway failed to follow the mandatory investigation procedures under Rules 10 and 12 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules 2020

The appeal was allowed. The Respondent Railway was directed to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim until the date of the judgment. The Railway was ordered to deposit the amount with the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks